# Shalini Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 410
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-03-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2682 of 2008
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shalini-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41214
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri Neeraj Tiwari
Sri Neeraj Sharma
S.C.

U.P.
Public
Service
Commission
(Reservation for Physically Handicapped
Dependent of Freedom Fighters and ExService man Act, 1993-readwith U.P.
State Universities Act (Regulation of
Admission to courses Institution for
Degree in Education in affiliated and
constituent college order, 1987-Entrance
Examination
for
B.Ed.
educationselection challenged-as no reservation of
2%
quota
for
fighters
of
freedom
provided-G.O. 1987 provides weightage
of
15
marks-held-except
weightage
under the Act as the examination is
neither conducted by U.P. Public Service
Commission, nor the public service post
advertised.

Held: Para 10 & 11

A perusal of the Act shows that it has
been
legislated
for
the
benefit
of
handicapped
dependents
of
freedom
fighters and ex-servicemen, who apply in
Public Services. It does not apply in the
field of education wherein the other
Government Order dated 5.5.1987 is
applicable.

Since
the
petitioner
is
neither
a
handicapped person nor she is appearing
in any examination held by the Public
Service Commission. She cannot get the
benefit of Act No. 4/1993.

## Text

410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
36. A copy of this order be
transmitted
to
the
learned
District
Collector, Aligarh within a week for
compliance. Petition
dismissed
with
cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2682 of 2008

Shalini Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U. P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Saroj Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Neeraj Tiwari
Sri Neeraj Sharma
S.C.

U.P.
Public
Service
Commission
(Reservation for Physically Handicapped
Dependent of Freedom Fighters and ExService man Act, 1993-readwith U.P.
State Universities Act (Regulation of
Admission to courses Institution for
Degree in Education in affiliated and
constituent college order, 1987-Entrance
Examination
for
B.Ed.
educationselection challenged-as no reservation of
2%
quota
for
fighters
of
freedom
provided-G.O. 1987 provides weightage
of
15
marks-held-except
weightage
under the Act as the examination is
neither conducted by U.P. Public Service
Commission, nor the public service post
advertised.

Held: Para 10 & 11

A perusal of the Act shows that it has
been
legislated
for
the
benefit
of
handicapped
dependents
of
freedom
fighters and ex-servicemen, who apply in
Public Services. It does not apply in the
field of education wherein the other
Government Order dated 5.5.1987 is
applicable.

Since
the
petitioner
is
neither
a
handicapped person nor she is appearing
in any examination held by the Public
Service Commission. She cannot get the
benefit of Act No. 4/1993.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioner has graduated from
Allahabad University from arts side. An
advertisement dated 13.4.2007 for holding
Joint Entrance Examination for B.Ed.
course for session 2007-2008 by the
Registrar Chhtrapati Shahuji, Maharaj
University, Kanpur for filling up 60,000
(Sixty
Thousand)
vacancies
was
advertised. She applied under the category
of dependant of Freedom Fighter in the
aforesaid examination held on 22.7.2007
and secured rank no.45459 in female
category and rank no. 118897 in general
category.

3. The advertisement provide that
the
Rules
of
reservation
of
U.P.
Government issued in this regard to
reservation shall apply but when the result
was declared she came to know that no
horizontal reservation of 2% in her
vertical category had been determined.
Aggrieved she has come up in this
petition on the ground that reservation
aforesaid not provided for dependants of
freedom
fighter
vitiates
the
whole
proceedings
being
against
the
Government Policy and the law said to
have been laid down by the State
Government as well as the guidelines laid
2 All] Shalini Singh V. State of U.P. and others
411
down for B.Ed. examination 2006 and
C.P.M.T. examination held in 2007
wherein 2% reservation is provided for
the category freedom fighter candidates.

4. Aggrieved she filed the writ
petition alleging that she has been
awarded 216 marks in the entrance
examination and if 2% reservation is
granted
to
her
then
she
would
undoubtedly be selected for the course. At
the time of admission an order dated
16.1.2008 was passed as under:-

"It appears from the advertisement
issued that reservation is to be granted to
the
candidates
according
to
the
Government Orders applicable in the
State of U.P.
Sri Neeraj Tiwari, counsel for the
petitioner
states
that
dependent
of
freedom fighters were given weightage of
15 marks in the examination.
Whether the weightage of 15 marks
given by the University to the dependent
of
freedom
fighters
amounts
to
reservation
according
to
various
Government orders is to be considered."
Counter and rejoinder affidavit have
been exchanged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon annexure no. 2 in the
rejoinder
affidavit,
which
is
a
Government
Order
providing
for
reservation, (1) Physically handicapped
2%, (2) Dependent on freedom fighters
2% and (3) ex-army 1%. Para 2 of the
annexure no. RA-2 is as under:-

"2. mDr /kkjk 3 1⁄421⁄2 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr dk iz;ksx
djds jkT; ljdkj us lela[;d vf/klwpuk] fnukad 4 ebZ]
1995 1⁄4izfr layXu1⁄2 tkjh dh gS] ftlds vuqlkj mijksDr
Jsf.k;ksa ds fy, vyx&vyx fuEuor~ dksVk fu/kkZfjr fd;k
x;k gS&
1⁄411⁄2
'kkjhfjd :i ls fodykaxksa ds
fy,
2 izfr'kr
1⁄421⁄2
Lora=rk laxzke lsukfu;ksa ds
vkfJrksa ds fy,
2 izfr'kr
1⁄431⁄2
HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds fy,
2 izfr'kr'

5. He has then relied upon annexure
no. RA-4 which is said to be clarification
of the aforesaid order. According to him,
the order is fully applicable to the
petitioner, he being a dependent of the
freedom fighter.

6. Sri Neeraj Tewari, learned
counsel for the respondents submits that
the aforesaid Government Order dated
10th May, 1995 and the so called
clarification of the same day appended as
annexure no. 2 and 4. He relied upon the
averments made to the rejoinder affidavit
respectively have been framed.

7. In the counter affidavit wherein it
has been averred that the petitioner is only
entitled to weightage of 15 marks as
provided in Government Order dated 5th
May, 1987 published in the extraordinary
gazette known as U.P. State Universities
(Regulation of Admission to courses on
instructions for Degree in Education in
affiliated and constituent Colleges) 1987.

8. A perusal of the government
Order annexed as Annexure No. CA-1 to
the counter affidavit shows that it
provides only for grant of 15 marks as
weightage for dependent of freedom
fighters not for any type of reservation in
the degree course of education.

9. It is stated that in the aforesaid
circumstances the U.P. Public Service
Commission (Reservation for Physically
handicapped
dependents
of
freedom
fighters and ex-servicemen) Act, 1993
412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
does not apply to the case of the
petitioner.

10. A perusal of the Act shows that
it has been legislated for the benefit of
handicapped
dependents
of
freedom
fighters and ex-servicemen, who apply in
Public Services. It does not apply in the
field of education wherein the other
Government Order dated 5.5.1987 is
applicable.

11. Since the petitioner is neither a
handicapped person nor she is appearing
in any examination held by the Public
Service Commission. She cannot get the
benefit of Act No. 4/1993.

12. In the circumstances, the case of
the petitioner is being governed by the
Government Order dated 5th May, 1987,
which provides for grant of 15% marks as
weightage. She is not entitled to 2%
reservation under the Uttar Pradesh Public
Services (Reservation For Physically
Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom
fighters and Ex-servicemen) Act 1993
(U.P. Act no. 4 of 1993).

13. The writ petition is accordingly,
dismissed, as such no relief can be
granted to the petitioner.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 8688 of
2008

Asif

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and another

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 205Exumption from personal appearanceaccused applicant working at Saudi
Arbiya-statements
of
complainant
recorded-charge
sheet
framedappearance
of
accused
essential-No
illegality
in
rejection
of
application
seeking
exemption
from
personal
appearance
shown-Trail
court
to
conclude Trail within time bound period.

Held: Para 2

This application has been filed for
challenging an order dated 17.11.2007
passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I,
Jaunpur in case No. 4516 of 2006
whereby the applicant's application for
exemption
of
his
attendance
under
section 205 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been rejected.
Case law discussed:
1995(2) JIC 1915 (All), 1995(2) JIC 1845 (All)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants
and
learned
Additional
Government Advocate.